Yet There Is Method In It

A senior British officer has told the Iraq war inquiry he urged Tony Blair to delay the invasion of the country two days before the conflict.

Maj Gen Tim Cross, who liaised with the US on reconstruction efforts before the invasion, said planning for after the conflict was “woefully thin”.

He said he briefed officials in the weeks before the war that Iraq could descend into chaos after the invasion. BBC

AC1

A agree with most of this, but not that we can ever “prevent it happening again”. That requires eternal vigilance. Oh yeah and if we gave power to the people, is that a good idea since they may be manipulated?

What I like about this video is the little heard idea that YOU HAVE THE POWER. (Well assuming a working democracy … or the possibility of political revolution.)

AC1

by Machiavelli

I short book and very concise for it. It examines the strategic and personal traits of successful princes. What makes the book notable is Machiavelli’s view of “successful” is in terms of a prince maintaining or expanding their realms. For our times, he seems rather paranoid of invasions and defeats – but then it was a serious concern in 1500′s Italy (or what is now called Italy). For him, the end always justifies then means. His view of people is rather low, being concerned mainly with self interest. He calls for Princes to do “good” when possible and “evil” when necessary. To say a person should do evil almost turns the concept on its head. It certainly flies in the face of objective moralists.

Regarding the current wars in Afghanistan, I don’t think Machiavelli would approve of the current approach. Western armies have injured but not eliminated their enemies. They have installed a puppet government instead of direct ruler who resides in the territory. They have not established permanent colonies (the Romans were well known for this). The West has instituted new laws which are a lack of continuity from local customs. A stranger to the land has become powerful, through links with groups in Pakistan. Western forces mostly don’t speak the local language.

Perhaps it is unwise to apply Machiavelli’s ideas to the modern world, but it is likely that they would succeed in rapidly subduing newly acquired territory. But does the end justify the means? One cool name for a chapter: “Of cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved of Feared”. They don’t write them like they used to…

Anti Citizen One

Policies that ignore the realities of the world we live in are doomed to fail. This is true for just about all the biggest issues that we confront, from energy and climate to criminal justice, health and immigration. I’m not arguing that science dictate policy; considerations such as cost, practicality and morality also have a role. But scientific evidence should never be brushed aside from the political debate. David Nutt

In interesting issue is being debated by the UK Supreme Court (yes there is a Supreme Court now): what rules can faith schools apply to school admission? It can be an interesting conflict in freedom of religion with freedom to attend competing with freedom to define a schools identity.

An article on the BBC outlines the Jewish school situation: can a convert to the religion attend an orthodox school that insists on Jewish decent on the mother’s side? Is this a case of freedom or of racial discrimination?

Other faith schools may be affected by the presidence in the above case. For example can a Catholic school insist on church attendance for admission? I am interested by the possibility that non-attendance might make a person more Christian based on the writings of Blake, Kierkegaard, etc. I was trying to recall the basis for church going on the Bible (within the New Testament) and I could not recall any; until I remembered I only have passing familiarity with the gospels and hardly anything in acts, etc. There does seem to be a contrast in institutional religion between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. Every instance of Jesus going to the Temple seems to highlight the gulf between what he stood for and what organised religion represents… Not to mention: “Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts[...]” Luke 20:46

I was on a bit of a rant there after C S Lewis’s pro-institutional views….

Anti Citizen One

I wonder at the people who call for the BBC to un-invite the BNP from the radio. What basis have they which does not use intolerance, or is illiberal or arbitrary? Some have claimed that they are an “illegal party” but other parties occasionally break laws and are not banished in the same way. The most credible argument is that it might cause an increase in racially motivated attacks. This well meaning idea opens the door to political movements that are contrary to the current government be labeled a threat to public safety and therefore banned. The same logic was used to temporarily ban Geert Wilders from the UK. If the ends outweigh the means in terms of public safety (a very utilitarian idea), we may as well change a police state as soon as can be arranged.

So, well done BBC for resisting an appeal to consequences.

AC1

(And I don’t agree with the BNP, obviously. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”)

I was flicking through a report on the limitations of GDP as a measure to guide policy decisions. Measuring progress by GDP is a laughable proposition (except for materialists). Financial growth at the expense of all else would pretty much destroy all social and natural resources. The report suggests inclusion of measures of “natural, physical, human, social” capital.

Recommendation 6: Quality of life depends on people’s objective conditions and capabilities. Steps should be taken to improve measures of people’s health, education, personal activities and environmental conditions. In particular, substantial effort should be devoted to developing and implementing robust, reliable measures of social connections, political voice, and insecurity that can be shown to predict life satisfaction.

All this provides a more balanced view for making policy decisions but is not without its draw backs. One recommendation is to measure “inequality” of these indicators for different groups. I would admit happiness is often based on ones perceived relative wealth. But I would rather focus on improving these indicators where efforts will actually realize results. The logical extension from eliminating all equality is to improve the lower scores and decrease the higher scores (in what ever measure we want to consider). This might sound a little extreme but medical ethics sometimes advocates using resources where the most benefit will be achieved (notably in the allocation of limited resources). They don’t normally advocate making visitors injured or sick to make things “equal”. I notice my view sounds rather utilitarian…. oh dear. Well back to the drawing board!

And others are proud of their modicum of righteousness, and for the sake of it do violence to all things: so that the world is drowned in their unrighteousness.

Ah! how ineptly cometh the word “virtue” out of their mouth! And when they say: “I am just,” it always soundeth like: “I am just-revenged!”

With their virtues they want to scratch out the eyes of their enemies; and they elevate themselves only that they may lower others. (Quote by…. guess who.)

Anyway, another concern is measuring an indicator and then trying to change it using policy usually causes distortions in policy to achieve “measurable” progress when actual progress might be zero due to resources being directed away from other unmeasured areas. We often see this in exam grade inflation, arrest to meet quotas, etc.

Thirdly, gathering statistics is only a step in policy decisions. Given a statistical “is” we cannot automatically infer a policy “ought”. A more fundamental change has to happen to values that drive decisions. This won’t happen by measuring things. What is “progress”? Until we figure that out, we are accelerating to destination unknown.

Anti Citizen One

I am glad to see that a UK pirate party has been launched. Their core policies:

• Reform copyright and patent law.
• End excessive surveillance
• Ensure freedom of speech and real freedom to enjoy and participate in shared culture.

Although I worry that their focus on one issue leaves their actions on all other issues rather ambiguous, I think their influence on the other parties will be beneficial. They will start adopting similar policies when threatened with losing support.

Their use of the word “pirate” is also interesting. The media corperations have attempted to portray people who do not respect copyright as pirates – being a BAD THING ™. To name your party as your old name of reproach and turn it into a label of honour is very interesting. Comparisons might be drawn with the label “gay” or even my sign off name “Anti Citizen One”.

I am very interested in copyright law and again will plug Lessig’s book Free Culture. In a few lines: creation of cultural works depends on reuse of existing culture and without some rights to reuse, culture is dead – at least for people who don’t have a deal with a large company with an extensive legal department to protect you.

Anti Citizen One

It might surprise some, but I am not very interested in the MP expenses scandal. It is of course true that some MPs claimed much more than absolutely necessary, but why would we expect them do to differently? The pursuit of wealth is accepted by the majority. Selfless actions are perhaps highly spoken off, but less actually done. But how can we call for MP’s to act selflessly? That would be a selfish thing to do – and therefore hypocritical!

In fact this whole issue is a distraction and an extension of finding someone to blame for economic woes, especially since attacking bankers has become boring. I am far more concerned with the authoritarian legislation that has been passed by the present government, illegal wars, trade and cooperation with countries that use torture, etc. A recent, more important issue: the recent Simon Signh libel case…

Update: Of course, I recklessly assumed that hypocritical criticism is a problem. We could call for politicians to be selfless to serve our own interests – and this is happening. The question is then: do we admit to ourselves that we are hypocrites? This is unlikely. The result is we lie to ourselves, saying “we are unselfish” and “politicians should be too!” – this also keeps the illusion of universal morality in tact. What is needed to replace this is a deeper debate on what type of person do we want as politicians and what exactly is the point in the state?…

Anti Citizen One

My attention has just been drawn to this controversial article written in The Australian by Hal Colbatch entitled “Thought police muscle up in Britain“.

I call it controversial mainly because the incidences it describes are obviously being discussed across the world. It is also controversial because the cases mentioned are extremes and often the over zealous applications of well-meaning laws (i.e. equality and diversity laws). But I believe the points he makes are accurate.

In describing Britain as a soft Totalitarian state he concludes his article with the following:

“Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together – and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day – they add up to a pretty clear picture.”

Do we citizens have cause for concern?